MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408822858 · doi:10.1017/cts.2024.952

320 Bridging the gap: Effective promotion of academic and community engaged (PACE) research dissemination strategies

2025· article· en· W4408822858 on OpenAlexaff
Tara Truax, Patricia Piechowski, Polly Gipson Allen, Sarah Bailey, Daphna Stroumsa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical and Translational Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomedical and Engineering Education
Canadian institutionsMichener Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridging (networking)PacePromotion (chess)Public relationsPolitical scienceComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives/Goals: Present a framework for hosting Community Grand Rounds, where community and academic partners showcase completed community-engaged research (CEnR) projects. This highlights innovative dissemination methods, engages diverse audiences, elicits community responses, and advances the translational science of CEnR. Methods/Study Population: Our approach involves planning and outreach to collaborate with promotion of academic and community engaged grantees to develop community dissemination events that translate the science of CE into accessible, relatable, culturally relevant formats for diverse audiences. These events incorporate interactive presentations that encourage active participation and feedback from attendees. Following each event, an evaluation is completed to assess community impact. Key strategies for hosting, facilitating, and utilizing diverse marketing to ensure that events are tailored to culturally diverse community groups, including regional implementation when practical. This collaborative approach meets a critical need and strengthens the bond between researchers and the communities they aim to serve. Results/Anticipated Results: These events create a feedback loop between the community and academic researchers. It was not just about telling people what was found. We created opportunities for community members and academics to build trust, give us feedback, ask questions, and discuss how findings could be practically applied. By presenting the findings in an accessible way within the community, community members are more informed and empowered to make decisions or advocate for changes in their own lives based on the research. Academics also benefited from community feedback, which provided new insights to help refine future research questions and methods. The goal is for shared conversation and understanding between community members and academics to inspire real-world applications and policy change directly informed by the research. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Community Grand Rounds are one dissemination strategy to leverage community–academic collaboration to present tailored research, fostering engagement, understanding, and action between researchers and community members. This approach effectively enhances the translational science of CEnR by involving and benefiting the community.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.331
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.374
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3310.374
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0090.009
Scholarly communication0.0220.032
Open science0.0070.039
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.008

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical and Translational ScienceSame topicBiomedical and Engineering EducationFrench-language works237,207